On the first day of Barack Obama's second term, this evening "Piers Morgan Tonight" will reflect on the president's tenure to this point, while also laying out inspirations and expectations for a second, and final, four year stint at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Welcoming a live studio audience, and a large collection of informed and opinionated guests, tonight Piers Morgan will host a town hall-style event focused on the future of American leadership.

Joining the program – and celebrating his first official day at CNN – Jake Tapper will add his vast Capitol Hill experience and insight, having recently been named CNN Anchor and Chief Washington Correspondent.

In addition to Tapper, legendary journalist and rhetorical master Dan Rather returns to the "Piers Morgan Tonight" studio. A seven-time Peabody award winner, Rather will be looking to build upon previous appearances which have seen the seven-time Peabody award winner drop such gems as "making his fingernails sweat" and "the smell of victory in his nostrils" as part of his description of what was then a hotly-contested race for the Republican nomination.

Successful American businessman turned NBA owner Mark Cuban will also join the program exclusively tonight, sharing some of the financial and leadership expertise that has helped him build his personal empire, which includes a role atop the 2011 NBA Champion Dallas Mavericks.

In addition to Tapper, Rather, and Cuban, "The New York Times" columnist Frank Bruni, Republican strategist Kellyanne Conway, and tax expert Grover Norquist all return to the primetime program as the show takes at look at President Obama, and the politics of the country moving forward.

soundoff(90 Responses)

Pat Eller

The NRA or other supporters of guns have made a big deal about the definition of "military style assault guns". Perhaps the proposal from Obama ought to be worded..."a gun the continues to fire bullets causing masses of deaths to people as long as the gunman hold down the trigger".
Piers, keep up your talks on gun control! We must ban assault guns and high capacity clips. We must stop the mass killings, especially in schools. (a mother, grandmother, and a teacher)

Pat, the reason the NRA and millions of gun owners such as myself, continue to make a point about definitions in the conversation about gun control is because so many, including as it appears you, have false ideas about how guns work. What you describe, "a gun the continues to fire bullets causing masses of deaths to people as long as the gunman hold down the trigger", is allready highly regulated and difficult to get. What you wrote, a gun that continues to fire as long as the trigger is held down, is a fully-automatic weapon. Again, that is NOT what civilians get when they purchase an AR-15. Furthermore, had the murderer in Newtown used the two pistols and the shotgun he also had, the results would have been the same.

Piers, I have written 44 congressmen to encourage them to vote for Obama gun control proposals. I can't believe how many publically speak out against these very common sense policies. They make a big deal about dealing with the mentally ill is what we ought to do instead. However, the proposal of adding the mentally ill to the can-not-buy-a gun list will not work. Health care workers will not report them because that would invade their privacy. Doctors won't report them because they could be sued for breaking convidentiality. The only way to keep assault guns and high capacity clips out of the hands of the mentally ill is to NOT HAVE THESE GUNS AVAILABLE!

Furthermore, how's any law change going to respect the rights of legitimate sportsmen and women. It might be a shock to some, but the AR15 is used in legitimate national targeting shooting events. Are lawmakers at when strike of pen going legislate out of existence legitimate sporting activities?

New York's Governor Cuomo certainly didn't respect the rights and freedoms of legitimate sportsmen when he passed that states draconian new gun law. Cuomo ironically claimed it was a bill that the entire nation should be proud of, but how can it ever be given that it was discussed and negotiated in secret and legitimate sporting groups were never consulted. New York's new law is an affront to the meaning of the word democracy and a black mark on that state's history.

But that's Cuomo, who's mere intent was to beat the headlines of the president's announcement the following day. Political opportunism at its worst was demonstrated by the Governor the night this bill was passed.

I did not write this although I wish i had. It was a mother from a site called Cafemom.com. I thought it was well written for the ridiculous "cars kill people analogy to guns":

With regard to the gun/car analogy, go ahead; let’s regulate guns in the same fashion that we regulate motor vehicles.

Before you can legally operate a motor vehicle you must pass a competence test. I can agree to a competence test before you can operate a gun.

There are proscribed actions that will revoke your ability to legally operate a motor vehicle should you demonstrate an inability to safely operate a vehicle. I can agree to a set process to have your access to guns restricted should you prove to be unsafe with a gun.

If you wish to operate a motor vehicle that is larger than a car (truck) or more maneuverable than a car (motorcycle) you must pass additional tests to legally operate these unique forms of transportation. I can agree to additional tests and checks if you wish to own a larger or faster gun.

Also, operators or larger vehicles such as trucks are held to a higher standard for sobriety and for how long they may legally operate their vehicle. I can agree to restrictions as to when and where you are allowed to operate specialized weapons. I can agree to higher penalties should you be found guilty of operating a weapon while under the influence of legal or illegal drugs. (Legal drugs include alcohol.)

If you wish to legally operate a motor vehicle on a public roadway you must register and pay fees to enjoy that privilege. These are often in the form or registration fees and roadway fuel taxes. I can agree to annual fees and registrations for each and every gun you own. I can also agree to fees and taxes on each individual bullet you wish to own. This could even be in the form of a stamp that could apply to a total number of live shells in your possession. That way when you use them you can transfer your tax stamp to apply to the new ammunition. If you buy enough tax stamps for 1000 shells, that is your personal limit. If you wish to have armor piercing teflon coated cop killers, the tax should be exponentially greater than the tax on a target round. Rounds purchased and used at a compliant shooting range would be tax exempt.

If you wish to operate your motor vehicle on a public roadway you need to either have valid insurance or post a bond (in some states) to reimburse a victim should your operation of a motor vehicle cause a loss to another individual or their property. I can agree to personal liability laws and mandatory insurance for each and every gun you wish to own or an umbrella policy that covers all of the guns you wish to own.

If you leave your keys in a vehicle and someone takes your vehicle and causes damage or injury, you are partially responsible for their actions because you failed to secure your vehicle. I can agree to individual liability should you fail to secure your firearms and the weapons end up in the hands of an individual who causes harm to people or property.

If a vehicle is deemed unsafe, there is a set process for forcing the manufacturer to correct that flaw and compensate those who suffered loss as a result of that flaw; it does involve the court system.

This process has guided vehicle manufacturers to constantly improve safety and crash survivability throughout the years. I can agree to a recall process for weapons that have proven unsafe in the hands of too many gun operators.

You are limited to how fast you are allowed to operate a motorized vehicle.

In some limited situations there are no speed limits.

I can go to a race driver fantasy camp and drive a formula one car if I can afford the cost of such an activity. I can agree to restrictions to how fast your weapon can fire live ammunition.

If you are at a designated facility, you should have the right to operate any capacity of gun you wish while under approved supervision.

There has been a significant amount of regulation to reduce the number of deaths as a result of the operation of motor vehicles.

We improve roads to reduce the mortality rate as a result of the operation of motor vehicles.

We restrict access to the operation of motor vehicles to reduce deaths and injuries.

If you're so attached to the car/gun analogy, fine, let's regulate them the same way!

Great comment. Twenty miles per hour is the magic number to make cars safe enough to prevent deaths. Even school children hit by a car going 20 MPH are likely to survive. You get the national speed limit set to 20 MPH and I will give up my 30 round magazines and my "assault rifle".

I assure you that you are one of a kind. Piers presents good common sebse views and represents good perspectives and the most recomemmded views of the intelligent in the world. I wish him the best and for continued voice in America – and Europe.

I commend you for your stand on guns, but as long as half the country still lives in the 20th century nothing will be done on this or any other important thing such as climate change, the economy or immagration.

Organizing for America has morphed into Organizing for Action. Does this guy ever stop campaigning?
It appears what we are seeing is a creepy cult surrounding Obama much like the type of people who followed Jim Jones. The power Obama holds over a certain type of gullible person is very frightening.

Two Things
1. How is a loyal subject from Britian supposed to underst and thef freedom from to protect yourself from harm as American citizen? How can he critique firearms when he is ignorant about firearms and only uses data that supports his biased opinion? Piers is a disgrace to respectful journalism by letting his emotions cloud his judgement and use slanted facts to push his liberal agenda on to a country he is visiting.

2. Until Piers Morgan has an ethics lesson and utilizes the lacking morals of jornalism or is removed from the air I will be heading a boycott for CNN and the sponsors in Piers Morgan Show for supporting an unethnical reporter.

Piers Morgan doesn't know how to lead a town hall debate on guns, let alone anything else. His method of interviewing someone includes interrupting the guest before they have the chance to offer a response, he talks over people in a rude manner and is insulting. He is a negative to CNN at best.

This is my opinion, irrespective of my point of view on the subject matter of the meeting.

Piers Morgan you are rude and ugly. How dare you treat the woman whose parents were murdered during a massacre in 1991 with such disdain and humilate her so by encouraging the audience to laugh at her. You did nothing but interrupt her and not allow her to answer your questions or make her point. You are a MALE CHAUVANIST PIG and while I've TRIED to watch your show I can longer stomache how rude and biased you are when it comes to your point of view. You disgust me and I wish CNN would fire you soon. I'm not going to watch any longer so that I don't contribute to your ratings.

Piers, thank you for keeping the attention on the issue of guns. As was noted, American attention fades fast on issues like this. As a former soldier and a gun owner, I think what you are doing is necessary to the public debate that must continue. Where we go from here will be small steps, but they will make a change...eventually...brick by brick we will build policies and laws that preserve what this country is truly about.

Hi Todd, You say we can build the change brick by brick. President Obama said it's a rocky road. I like the rocky road analogy better because brick by brick sounds like hard work but a rocky road, covered with nuts, mmm yummy.

hey pierce let Dan finish his statement he was on the cusp of making a very good point how obama will silver tongue the public to get what he wants. cause the people in office are worried about there PERKS rather then the millions they serve.... we are all ants that can vote to our government.. who ever has the biggest pile of sugar wins!!

Why would you have Dan Rather as a guest. He is a discredited, deceitful, former journalist who has proven to make up his own facts when the truth doesn' support his politics. Kind of similar to the approach you are taking on the 2d Amendment. For the record, I am done watching CNN and you.

Yes, Piers, what the media is calling an "assault weapon" really is the same as a hunting rifle. They really do just have different color stocks, and safety/adapability features.

A standard AR-15 shoots the .223 cartridge. So does a Ruger Mini-14 – a popular and effective rifle used by folks who hunt coyote and small game. Why do you insist that I put black plastic pieces on my Ruger Mini-14 I must be bent on slaying hundreds of people with my 'high-powered' rifle? What the proposed ban is covering is the cosmetic features of a gun – it has nothing to do with its power or killing ability.

I have discovered lots of people that defend the AR-15 as not being an assault gun or disagree with the definition of "assault gun". You begin by telling me that the AR-15 is NOT an assalt gun, right? Tell me more. Educate me on what defines a gun that " shoots continuously until the gunman no longer pulls on the trigger".

The difference between an "Assault Rifle" and a normal sporting rifle, as far as civilian versions go, comes down to one comsetic feature. The pistol grip.

As was said, besides a pistol grip, an AR-15 and a Ruger Mini-14 "Ranch Rifle" are functionally similar. Semi-auto, similar magazine sizes, same ammunition. As a matter of fact, the Ruger Mini-14 is probably lethal at a longer range then the AR-15 is.

As a matter of fact, here in California, you can own a Mini-14 with no restrictions (except a 10-round magazine). It has a normal rifle stock. But guess what? The moment you get a stock kit for it, like the Archangel "Sparta" stock for the Mini-14/Mini-30, that Ruger Mini-14/Mini-30 is now considered an "Assault Rifle"..

What changed?

Same action, same barrel, same everything, except the stock. Now you have a rifle with a pistol grip. That makes it an "Assault rifle".

Basically, a true "assault rifle" is a full-auto or bust-fire military-grade weapon.

An AR-15 is a semi-automatic weapon, meaning 1 trigger pull = 1 shot. You can only fire as fast as you can pull the trigger. Just like most of the hunting rifles on the market.

The AR-15 is a civilian version of the M16/M4 rifle. It's just that. Civilian. It's semi-auto. It's illegal to own a full-auto unless you're a class III holder, and class IIIs are extremely difficult to get.

Let's take another weapon as an example.

The MP5 is a submachine gun capable of firing 800-900 rounds per minute.

However, there are civilian versions of the MP5 that are semi-automatic. The mechanisms that make it fully automatic have been removed and bypassed so that it's semi-automatic. 1 shot for 1 trigger pull.

At that point, the civilian MP5 is no more a "Sub Machine gun" then a Buick Skylark is a Space Shuttle.

The same goes for the AR-15. It is not a military-grade weapon. No military on earth outfits with AR-15s. It's a civilian rifle. It is, for all intents and purposes, a hunting rifle with a pistol grip..

You have someone on your show trying to explain to you that an AR-15 and a "hunting rifle" are functionally similar.

Compare an AR-15 to a Ruger Mini-14 "Ranch Rifle". They're both semi-auto, they use the same ammunition, they can both have relatively large magazines. They are capable of exactly the same rate of fire. 1 shot per trigger pull.

What is the big difference between an AR-15 and a Ruger Mini-14 (That you can buy from ANY sporting goods store, even here in California...)?

The fact that an AR-15 looks scary.

THAT'S IT. Those are the ONLY functional differences.

Your constant ranting about "Military-style assault weapons" is stupid. You talk about "Spraying down entire areas"..Spraying? With a SEMI-AUTOMATIC RIFLE? Do you have any idea how dumb that makes you sound?

Piers, why don't you state some true statistics on your show? Like the fact that TWICE as many people were killed in the US last year by beatings (Being punched and kicked to death) as were killed by rifles of ANY kind, including "assault rifles", which are a tiny subset of rifles in general.

Why don't you state that less then 3% of all the gun crimes in 2011/2012 were committed by rifles of ANY kind? "Assault rifles" are a tiny subset of rifles in general.

Why don't you state the fact that the UK's, especially Britain and Wales, has had a SKYROCKETING violent crime rate since the guns were taken away?

Well said Shaun! Thank you for presenting the facts, something I've yet to hear from Piers!!! CNN please adopt some real journalistic standards and hire people who present us with the facts and offer a fair and balanced debate. Oh wait, I guess I can just change it to another channel if I want fair and balanced. Done.

Bravo Shaun and Celeste...Piers is an egotistical and rude. His favorite debate tactic is to speak over guests, and when he hears something he doesn't agree with he calls his guest a "liar".
CNN should be ashamed to put this clown on a prime time slot. But, then again, the ratings show that very few people are watching. He has the lowest rated show on evening TV.

Hi Shaun, I don't believe your stats are accurate. Wikipedia says in 2011 Violent crime was down 47% in UK since 1995. Skyrocketing down do you mean? Wikipedia also informs that different states and different countries have differing definitions for violent crimes. Eg in Australia assault is included in violent crime stats and assault includes verbal threats and intimidation. So behavior of Alex Jones on Piers Morgan show could be considered violent crime.

Hi Shaun, Wikipedia UK violent crime stats are based on The UK Home Office crime stats. Which year stats are you referring to? There have been some ups and downs since 1995, but general trend is down and with a 47% reduction since 1995. Facts are stubborn.

The Bible teaches that violence begets violence,gun violence is violence,so gun violence begets gun violence,so giving more people more guns will not end gun violence,but increases the possibility of producing more gun violence.Gun violence is more likely to happen where there are more guns,not where there are less guns.

Okay… if you could instruct me as to how I should protect my family including a 5-year-old if two Mexican gang members should bust into my house, I would truly appreciate it.

Please give me a step-by-step foolproof instruction of how I should hold them off until police arrive (sometimes it can take 30min.), with only 10 bullets when they have more than 10 bullets in each gun (FYI: criminals don’t follow the law), I’ll forever be in your debt for your wisdom.

Piers keeps saying "you don't NEED big guns" .... "we don't NEED a car to go over 70 miles and hour" .... Should the government take our cars because there are people out here that are driving dangerously?

Piers please continue the discussion on gun control. I have a question. The 2nd amendment states 'A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed'. This amendment appears to provide for the American people to bear arms to support the security of a free state. However, in this day and age that is impossible. The government has access to bazookas, nuclear war heads, tanks, so much force that even if we gave Americans the right to fully automatic weapons should the government turn against the citizens the weapons the government has would quickly overwhelm what Americans can carry. Why aren't we discussing the basis for the amendment which was if the government turned on its people. Our forefathers were concerned about what happened before in other countries not happen here. Now with the weapons available that appears to be a moot point.

Somehow many people think “fight against tyranny” only means an all-out war between the government and the citizenry... civilians are no longer any match for the military force even with assault weapons, so what’s the point of having them, eh? …Wrong! Tyrannical leaders do not want public outcry, much less International attention, if the International community notices what they’re doing, they have very little chance in succeeding. If any major democratic government used a tank or bomb against their own people, you can imagine that other countries are going to know it almost immediately, right? Do you think the government can give the world a persuadable enough justification for it? If the US Govt. did this, do you think England, France, Germany, Italy, India, South Korea, Canada, (not sure about Russia and China) will just stand idly by and watch?? So, unless the government can do it without other countries knowing, tyranny won’t stand a chance. If the majority of the populace stands up with powerful firearms, there is no way for the government to be able to suppress them without causing massive commotion, this would suffice to sound the alarm to the world that our liberty is being threatened, so is the liberty of the entire world.

By the way, tyrants know that too (they are crazy but not stupid), so they won’t do a thing until they can relatively disarm the populace and make them controllable. So they give you the most plausible rationale, just as Hitler said, “Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!" ….Only if the German people didn’t listen to him, so many Jews didn’t have to perish in Auschwitz.

This is why, still today, a well-armed citizenry is a strong deterrence against tyranny. Don’t think so hastily that you can outthink our Founding Fathers.

Gay teenagers are committing suicide because they are been bullied and taunted. Been gay is a birth defect, therefore it is good for the leader of our Country to use the word so that people can realize that it's acceptable. We are all children of God and God does not exclude gay people.

Because of my previous statement, people will now think I'm a gun-toting loony because of my post and that I want no change.

I'm all for universal background checks. I'm all for waiting periods. I'm NOT for databases of gun owners, I'm ESPECIALLY not for making those databases public. I'm most definitely not for anything that changes current Assault Rifle restrictions, considering that your "assault rifle", be it an AR-15, an AK-47, an ACR, a Galil,, is a hunting rifle with the ability to add some "tacti-cool" attachments to it, like a flashlight..

Piers seems to think that your standard AR-15 is a burst-fire or full-auto military-grade weapon with military-grade ammunition, and he could NOT be farther from the truth. There ARE full-auto assault rifles out there, but they're only legally owned by Class III holders and if you can point me at a LEGAL class III holder using a LEGAL class III weapon in a violent crime in the last 20 years I will kindly tip my hat to you.

Piers is in constant denial of the truth, and he's constantly spreading disinformation and straight-out lies. Such as stating that the AR-15 is not essentially a hunting rifle. But you know, isn't that why he lost his job in the UK anyway? Spreading disinformation?

And yet here we are in America, soaking up everything that comes from him like sheep..

1) Violent crime has been on a rapid decline in the US. 49% in the last 20 years. This is from the FBI's website.
2) Gun murder rate has been on a rapid decline in the US. 54% in the last 20 years. This is from the FBI's website
2b This figure INCLUDES lawful shootings by law enforcement and citizens. They're all lumped together as "murders".

Kudos for you Shaun! And may I add that the countries he most mentions that have banned guns are of parlimistic governments! Is it not of the same regime that our ForeFathers fought against? I hope lefty America wakes up!

So if Piers doesn't have a problem with the second amendment and the right to own arms for self protection, why did his newspaper, The Daily Mirror, when he was editor lead a telentless national campaign in Britain to ban handguns and disarm his own countrymen. We know from his country's national statistics that gun crime and gun injuries have doubled sinse and that the violent crime is now one of, if not the highest in the western world. So why would we believe Piers now when it comes him saying his real intent is not to disarm Americans like advoctated fir in his own country. It smacks of a double standard to me!

But Piers the Goverment can't legislate against every dangerous situation. Try telling the Korean shopkeepers in the LA riots or in New Orleans that they couldnt have a gun with a 100 bullet magazine to protect themselves and their families. There are 10s of millions of these magazines out there, the bad guys and crazies are always going to get them. They are not all magically going to disappear because of a ban.

Piers you continue to mislead your audience with statistics. Compared to its Western European neighbors gunless Britain has the highest murder rate. Globally the Swiiss, Germans and Fench are the 3rd, 4th and 5th largest gun owning nations in the world. The Swiss own on a pet capita basis nearly 8 times as many guns as your fellow countrymen, the British, and the Germans and French nearly 5 times as many, and yet the per capita homicide rates in these countries is nearly 40% lower. If we subscribe to your notion that more guns mean more crime these countries would have significantly higher homicide rates than Britain, but they don't.

In terms of terminal ballistic there is also a lot of misinformation being banded around Piers" show. A 12 gauge shotgun loaded with buckshot at close range is far more devastating and its multiple projectiles will penetrate much much further and deeper than a 223 round. You can hide behind something pretty solid and know that 223 round won't penetrate, which is a different story for buckshot or many pistol bullets or heavier caliber rifle bullets. In Vietnam the VC could hide behind trees with confidence that the 223 round wouldn't penetrate. It wasn't the same for our troops facing the heavier AK47 round that can go through substantial tree trunks with ease.

Piers accuses the NRA and other gun lobby groups of scaremongering, however listening to the misinformation and manipulation of statistics we've had from this badly informed journalist is like the pot calling the kettle black. Piers' show is like watching and listening to a TV version of some of the worst British tabloids. Having run one of these cheap news papers for several years before he got fired for falsifying pictures that appeared in his tabloid, I guess Piers has come over here to create a TV version of the same tacky dross.

When I first watched the Alex Jones interview, I thought Alex was rude. I was wrong. For people with different opinions, Piers didn't even allow them to finish! When the guests answered his questions favoring his agenda, he let them talk. Otherwise, he would just so rudely interrupt and even talk over the guests to make his "point".

So it seems the only way to express a different opinion with Piers Morgan, is the Alex Jones style. Good job, Alex!

no Ed, you were right first time. Alex was rude and disrespectful. His behavior was a disgrace. The recent comments of Colin Powell about idiot presentations and intolerance I think, apply to Alex. It's wrong. Piers isn't a perfect journalist, his shows are controversial and are serving a purpose of getting Americans interested in gun control. Well done Piers, keep it going.

I have to disagree. Various guests tried reasoning with Piers but they were rudely cut off or talked over. Since Piers himself has clearly shown his preference of communication, it was respectful of Alex to communicate the way Piers prefers.

I love to watch the Piers Morgan show. But last night I had it and contacted CNN. Every show is about GUNS now. Hats off to wanting to make change but I don't want every show to be about guns and if there is an interesting guest on the questions goes back to guns. Last night the show started out with him saying, "Today there was another shooting." To CNN, I commented, "Today someone was killed in a car crash, burned in a fire, stabbed ......" I am against asault weapons. I was the Committee Secretary years ago, when I worked for the Legislature in Calfiornia, who help put together a hearing on Asault weapons in San Francisco. I have seen them first hand. Enough Piers.

Piers, as I sat watching your show, I was appalled that when you asked "Why Obama can't get any support from Republicans"?, no one even hinted of the possibilty that RACISM may be hiding under the cloak of politics. As it has always been, racism is alive and well in America, although nowadays it is not "politicially correct" to mention it. Except Obama, what other President is US history has had the opposing political power to vow to not support ANYTHING he says or does. Why not? Again I ask, is it RACISM hiding under the cloak of politics? OUR COUNTRY NEED LEADERS WHO ARE WILLING TO PUT ASIDE DEEP ROOTED PERSONAL PROBLEMS and work together for the benefit of all Americans.

I say keep having these shows about guns. They are educating folks about guns. There are too many conversations happening at water coolers.around the nation with people who haven't the slightest idea of what a rifle is. The more people learn that an assault rifle is the same as a hunting rifle, only it looks scarier, the more everyone can settle on the most suitable action.

I am extremely impressed with your writing skills and also with the layout on your weblog. Is this a paid theme or did you customize it yourself? Either way keep up the nice quality writing, it's rare to see a nice blog like this one today.. Mulberry Bags http://mulberrybags.v5s7.com

Post a comment

CNN welcomes a lively and courteous discussion as long as you follow the Rules of Conduct set forth in our Terms of Service. Comments are not pre-screened before they post. You agree that anything you post may be used, along with your name and profile picture, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and the license you have granted pursuant to our Terms of Service.